Sofio v Valenzuela Bersamin, J.

G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012

Digester: Chris16

FACTS:
Respondents Alberto, Gloria, Remedios, and Cesar, all surnamed Valenzuela, are brothers and
sisters. They are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land designated as lot no. 970-b and
located in Negros Occidental, containing an aggregate area of 10.0959 hectares.

Unknown to the respondents, petitioner had obtained permission to farm the abandoned area
for free from Socorro Valenzuela, the respondents mother, on condition that Rolando would
return the portion once the owners needed it.

In 1985, after petitioners refused Glorias demand for the return of 1.8hectares, she lodged a
complaint against Rolando. The parties did not reach an amicable settlement.

On July 8, 1988, emancipation patents were issued to Roland and Rufio covering their
respective areas of tillage.

On October 5, 1990, the respondents brought in the DARAB a complaint against the petitioners,
seeking the cancellation of the eps, recovery of possession, and damages, alleging that the
petitioners cultivation of their land had been illegal because they had not consented to it.

PARAD ordered the cancellation of petitioners. The petitioners appealed to wit the DARAB gave
a favorable ruling to the petitioners. The respondents elevated the DARABs decision to the CA.

The CA decreed that the petitioners did not adduce evidence to prove the existence
of a tenancy relationship between them and the respondents; and that the DARABs reliance
on the rice and corn land tenure survey was unfounded. The decision became final and
executory on October 27, 1998 after the petitioners neither moved for reconsideration nor
appealed by certiorari to the court.

On February 6, 2002, the petitioners, represented by new counsel, filed in the PARAD a motion
for relief from judgment, motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 27, 2001, and
motion to recall writ of execution dated January 23, 2002 alleging therein that they had learned
of the May 27, 1998 decision of the CA only on December 11, 2001 through their receipt of the
November 27, 2001 order of the PARAD granting the respondents ex parte motion for
execution.

When PARAD denied the motion, the petitioners then filed in the CA a motion to recall entry of
judgment with motion for leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration to which the ca
denied. Hence, petitioners appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE 1:
Whether or not the CAs denial of motion to recall entry of judgment denied them fair play,
justice and equity

HELD
No cause to disturb the decision of the CA since the decision had long become final and
executory
To justify an override, the counsels negligence must not only be gross but must also be shown
to have deprived the party the right to due process. Given this doctrine, the only exceptions to
the general rule are: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
that cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality of the judgments rendering execution unjust and inequitable.

The court stressed that the object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new
judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper
form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth,
so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to
render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously
render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been.

Based on such definition and characterization, the petitioners situation did not fall within the
scope of a nunc pro tunc amendment, considering that what they were seeking was not mere
clarification, but the complete reversal in their favor of the final judgment and the reinstatement
of the darab decision.